Orissa

Rayagada

CC/26/2021

Smt. Sunitarani Pattanaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Redmi Note 9 Pro Max Mobile, Registered Office, Manak Waste Manager Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

29 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA.  E-mail-    dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

Date of Institution: 8.02.2021

       Date of Final Hearing: 15.02.2024

          Date of  Pronouncement: 29.02.2024

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.  26 / 2021

Smt. Sunitarani  Patnaik,

W/O:  L.M.Patnaik,

Near Deepti  Convent  School,

 Post/Dist: Rayagada, 765 001,(Odisha)

(Represented  in person)                                                                                                                     …Complainant

Versus.

1.The Manager, Redmi Note 9 Pro Max mobile,

Registered  office,  Manak Waste  Manager Pvt. Ltd.,

Okhla  phase-11, New Delhi.

2.The ;Manager, Xiaomi  Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,

Ground Floor, AKR Infinity, Sy No. 113, Krishna  Reddy

Industrial  Area,  7^th. Mile, Hosur Road,

Bangalore, Karnataka  State.

(None for the O.Ps)

                                                                        …Opposite Parties  (O.Ps)

ORDER          U/S- 39  R/W  SECTION- 64 OF THE C.P.ACT,2019

Delivered:- Hon’ble President: Shri Rajendra  Kumar Panda

Brief facts of the case:-

Case in hand is the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  non refund of purchase price of  mobile set which was not functioning well within the warranty period  which  the complainant sought  redressal.

The Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant   had purchased a  Redmi Note  9  Pro Max Mobile phone Aurora Blue  6GB/64 GB of Model M2003J6B11, part No.MZB9151IN from the O.P. No. 1 on Dtd.10.7.2020  on payment of consideration a sum of Rs.18,500/-. After using the above product six  months found  mechanical defect has been arise  i.e. screen is not functioning  properly, switching off automatically, hanged at any time etc.   Immediately  the  complainant  made several approach to the  O.Ps  customer  care  for rectifiation.  The complainant  being harassed by the O.Ps by the negligence in providing  their services  and put him  under mental agony.  The Service centre  has not  rectified the defects of the  above product  permanently.  The complainant  had requested the  O.P.(Service Centre)  as  the above product   is covered under the warranty period   the company  will be made  perfect running  condition  without   receiving   any  amount, but the O.Ps (Service  centre) has bluntly  refused to  replace with a new one. During the warranty period the  above set was  found defective  for which  the complainant intimated the same to the O.Ps, including  the service centre under the jurisdiction  but the O.Ps has    not  given proper service for functioning of the above  set.  Due to such  negligent  service  of the service centre the  complainant  moved the matter  to the  O.Ps   for  replacement  with a  new one  or refund  of the purchase price  of the above product.   But the O.Ps had  paid  deaf ear  to the genuine  complaint.  Hence, the complainant  finding no option  approached this Commission  to get relief   alleging  deficiency  in service  on the O.Ps  prayed  to   direct the O.Ps  to refund   the  purchasing price of   Rs.18,500/- for said above set  and further  claimed  Rs.30,000/- for  physical  and mental harassment  besides  other reliefs .  To substantiate its complaint, the complainant  filed    Invoice, Warranty  card.

The O.Ps were not appeared though notices has been duly served  resultant made exparte.

Heard  the learned counsel for the  complainant.  Perused the record, affidavit  and other documents  filed by  the complainant.

Basing on the pleadings of the complainant, this commission framed the following issues for determination.

ISSUES:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps.?
2. Whether the  services of the O.Ps are  deficient towards the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled  to any reliefs from the O.Ps?

.Issue  No.1.

As  per  Section 2(7)(I) & (ii) of C.P. Act, 2019 a person can be deemed to be a consumer  when he hires or avails   of any  services for consideration which has been  paid or  promised  to be  paid. In the instant case the  complainant  had purchased the  mobile  set from the O.P.  No.1  on  payment  of consideration  of   Rs.18,500/- on   Dated.  10.07.2020  for which   the O.Ps issued Tax  Invoice  in favour of the  complainant marked as Annexure-I. Therefore the complainant falls within the  definition of consumer.

            Accordingly   issue No. 1  is answered.

Issue    No.2&  3 .

These  two issues invite common discussion and hence  they are being taken up together.

            This commission  perused the documents filed by the  complainant and it proves that the complainant has purchased  a  mobile set   from  O.P.No.3 under the direct control by O.P. 1 & 2.    When the  above set  was found  defective,   the  O.Ps service  centre  has  to remove the defects as ensured  during  selling their products     failed to provide service    which is clear deficiency  in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

            At this stage this commission  hold that if the  above product  require service  immediately after  its purchase then it can be presumed  that it  is  manufacturing defect and if a defective  product is supplied , the consumer is entitled to  get refund of the price of the product/article or to replace a new one  and  the consumer  is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost  to meet his mental  agony, financial  loss.

            In the instant case as it appears that the above product which was  purchased by the complainant had developed  defects immediately after its purchase and the  O.Ps were unable to restore  its normal  functioning during the warranty period.

            Record proves  that the complainant invested a substantial amount and had purchased above product  with an expectation to have the  effective  benefit  of use of the product, but in this case   the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the   product  and  deprived of in using  the  above set as  the defects were not removed  by the O.Ps.

Hence it is ordered.

                                    ORDER.

The O.Ps No.1  & 2 are    directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  inter alia  to refund  price  of  Rs.18,500/- for the mobile  set   to the complainant.  Parties are left to bear their own cost.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated. 

Pronounced in the open court of this Commission today on this 29th. Day of    February, 2024   under   the  seal  & signature of  this Commission.

Dictated and corrected  by me.

                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT

A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                          PRONOUNCED ON  Dated.  29.02.2024